click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130422
20130422
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
made without a miranda warning or made while he's not really competent between times when he's sedated and not sedated. so they may be risking their death penalty, but they may be doing it for a good reason. they may need realtime intelligence, but i don't think that the public safety exception will stand up for allowing them not to have given the miranda warnings. >> fascinating. in fact, i have a lot of questions about that i'm going to get to. and actually i want to bring in another colleague as well right now. steve razor is a former military judge advocate general and knows a thing or two about this military issue. typically, steve, we hear about a 48-hour window and this is a very new area of justice. this has only been in sort of parlay for the last couple of years. we are far outside of that 48 hours by today. but can it be extended in the case of public safety? and exactly when can you establish that a public safety exemption has expired or is no longer of concern? how long can you keep him from getting miranda? >> well, there's no hard and fast rule on that. and that's exactl
reading him miranda rights. what does that mean for any information they might be getting? >> well, it's very important to the people -- we've been talking a lot about miranda and i think it's important for people to understand what it does and doesn't mean. if you are questioned without your miranda rights, all that means is that the statements you make cannot be used against you in a criminal court. they can be used against other people. they can be used as leads to other inquiries. and you can still be prosecuted with lots of other evidence. all it means is that those statements cannot be used against you. from what it certainly appears there is lots of other evidence against this fellow. so the fact that the government might be giving up the chance to use some of it is not much of a sacrifice on the part of the government. >> he also at this point could indicate he wants an attorney and doesn't want to answer any questions, correct? >> absolutely. even when someone doesn't get miranda rights, the statements still have to be voluntary. he can't be tortured. he can't be waterboarded.
to find out how much he knows. he's not been read his miranda rights. people are familiar with what mie ran da means. when ever the police arrest somebody stla to tell them that they have the riepght to remain silent and anything they say can be used against them in court. that i plies when there's an immediate threat to the public safety or the offers doing t interrogation. you pointed out there's suspicions and maybe accomplices. we don't know if there were other devices. certainly the fi by is remieing on a lot of what we know. >> you've cut to the very heart of the first and maybe biggest controversy is whether he should be read his rights or encouraged to speak as freely as possible without an attorney present. that's the other part of the miranda proses. the part that you have the right to an attorney. they don't particularly want him to have an attorney right now. >> mie ran y rairanda was invok protect rights. it can impede an investigation but it's to provide personalization and due process. the supreme court was careful in 1984 to charve out this exception to that says if ther
of public safety exception before you give him his miranda rights, all that talk of naming him as an enemy combatant, all of that is moot right now. they've gone forward with the official proceedings. >> well, they may have used the public safety exception, and apparently they were using it to question him, and he responded in some way given his medical condition. but certainly now that he has a lawyer, that period, however long it was, is over. and you're right, the enemy combatant thing was a nonstarter from the never going to happen. this is a criminal case in federal court in massachusetts, and that's where it will stay until it's resolved one way or another. >> it's going to take a while. thanks very much, jeffrey. much more on what's going on in this boston investigation coming up here in "the situation room" 0. >>> also, another terror plot released today, new information. canadian authorities announcing the arrest of two men believed to be part of a terror plot to attack a passenger train that may have been heading towards the united states, the plot said to have an alleged connect
-called public safety exception to the miranda rule where for some period of time, it's not entirely clear how long, a suspect can be questioned without miranda warnings and that apparently is what's happening here. again, it's complicated somewhat by the fact that we didn't know exactly what tsarnaev's medical condition is and how many questions he can answer. apparently he's answering some questions in writing. so i don't really see lindsey graham's proposal as all that differentwhat's going on now. he seems to suggest a longer process of questioning him, but the obama administration has also committed to some period of questioning. now, this all assumes that he's willing to answer questions. can he always samp simply say it answering questions and there is no way either under enemy combatant rules or in the criminal justice system to force someone to answer questions who doesn't want to answer them. >> the argument i guess is under this limited questioning period before he is formally advised of his miranda rights, he has and right to an attorney, doesn't have to answer any questions. there
a former federal prosecutor. we now that dzhokhar, suspect number two, has been read his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and they don't need to hide behind enemy combatant? >> i think that is certainly part of it. it does look like an overwhelming body of evidence. more than that, they thought they could get the immediate information they needed by the miranda exception, the public safety exception so they could make sure the public was safe. there accident seem to be an constitution aal basis to treat someone that commits a crime like this on our soil. the supreme court has upheld treating an american, the american taliban hamdi captured in afghanis
to answer this first, chris. let's talk about miranda here and the fact that his rights have not been read to him. what do you make of that? will that be an issue going forward in this particular case? >> you know, it depends. first, i don't know -- we don't know if he's said anything. if he hasn't made any statements at all, the fact that he didn't get his miranda rights read is not going to be an a relevant issue. if he's made statements i think what the government is doing in expanding that public safety exception beyond the immediacy of the act i think is something that will be taken up, and it will have to be looked at maybe by the u.s. supreme court who just last week heard oral argument in the case from houston that was asking the question when does the fifth amendment or when does your right to remain silent gyp, and so we're already looking at these issues. this is an expansion i think that expands the public safety exception. i think some court is going to have to look at that. >> thank you very much. it's been almost a week now since this city was terrorized, and it's seemingly
should happen to boston bombing suspect dzhokhar tsarnaev. >> miranda warnings is probably a tem pet pest in a teapot here. the 2013 lexus gs. this is the pursuit of perfection. it's easy to follow the progress you're making toward all your financial goals. a quick glance, and you can see if you're on track. when the conversation turns to knowing where you stand, turn to us. wells fargo advisors. where you stand, turn to us. ♪ beep beep what?a score alert ♪if you set your phone to vibrate ♪ ♪ then it might alert your button flies all the ♪ ♪ girls and the guys wanna keep that credit score ♪ ♪ high like a private jet free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ don't forget! narrator: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com [ female announcer ] from meeting customer needs... to meeting patient needs... ♪ wireless is limitless. ♪ from finding the best way... ♪ to finding the best catch... ♪ wireless is limitless. ♪ hwelcome back.. nice to see you again! hey! i almost didn't recognize you without the suit. well, this is my weekend suit. weekend getaways just got b
are told he had not been given his miranda rights. do you have any sense of whether he has this morning or how soon it will be before he does receive them? >> the -- the decision not to read miranda rights was made by the federal officials. this is a unique clause to the terrorism law that we've not dealt with at the local level before. so, we are standing by and watching that at this point in time to see how that develops. but, the lawyers are involved in the decision, and certainly we're very anxious to talk to him, and the investigators will be doing that as soon as possible. >> commissioner over the weekend i heard you say you believe you found evidence your offices did you believe that these brothers were planning some kind of another attack, or at least prepared for it. tell us about that. >> the two suspects were armed with handguns at the scene of the shoot-out. and there were multiple explosive devices, including a large one that was similar to the pressure cooker device that was found on boylston street. i saw that with my own eyes. i believe that the only reason that someone
. just to confirm, this -- dzhokhar tsarnaev has not yet been read his miranda rights, correct? >> i have to say i don't know. because there was an initial appearance today, that's why this complaint is out. the circuit executive, the administrator of this area, has put out a statement saying there was an initial appearance before a magistrate judge. that is as far as i understand it an arraignment. i have never heard of an arraignment without an attorney present. they didn't mention an attorney present. if an attorney is present, the attorney will simply say to the client, you -- don't answer questions. at that point, the attorney is the person the prosecutor is supposed to deal with. i have to say, there is information out there that we don't have. whether an attorney was present, whether this was an actual arraignment, i think we just need to hold off on that until we get more information. >> we're holding off. still so early this all happened. >> before we let deb feyerick go and chase down that lead she was referring to, deb, i was wondering, is there anything else that stands out in
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10